The Gaming Den

If it's supposed to be a godzilla, then why doesn't the tarrasque have anything like atomic breath?

Wiseman wrote:If it's supposed to be a godzilla, then why doesn't the tarrasque have anything like atomic breath?

Because it wasn't like that in previous editions, duh!

But seriously, "tradition" has driven the specifics and naming conventions of D&D for the duration of its lifespan. It seems like the only time tradition is broken is to make things less interesting.

Wiseman wrote:If it's supposed to be a godzilla, then why doesn't the tarrasque have anything like atomic breath?

Because it's French.
And I think that about covers it.

If it's supposed to be a godzilla, then why doesn't the tarrasque have anything like atomic breath?

An atomic breath weapon would make sense for the Tarrasque.

There could be other things too. People have mentioned burrowing, and that would be useful.

Other ranged attacks could be an earth-shattering monster roar! Also like Godzilla. Like say everything within a 5-mile radius that hears the roar gets stunned and takes sonic damage. Then fliers would fall down haha.

Or heck he could have a 1000' vacuum cleaner cone attack and just suck up anyone in the cone and chew on them. I don't care. Even something kind of stupid like this woudl be an improvement, which just goes to show how fucking shitty this iconic monster is in 5e. It's level 30 for fuck's sake.

IIRC the 4e Tarrasque had some ability to limit flying in its presence. I forget the details, but it was 4e and it was probably stupid anyway.

But the biggest crime is how they took away the cool feature of Regenerating from all damage even death magic and disintegrate; Wish spell required to kill it permanently. They should have never took taken that away. It just contributes more to the Tarrasque being a big dumb retard.

I mean FUCK, even with a generous regeneration ability ALONE it wouldn't have to worry about getting killed by a single flying wizard shooting lasers. What were they thinking? WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?!?

FUCK 5E AND FUCK MIKE MEARLS! FUCK HIS WHINY LITTLE BITCH CR 30 TARRASQUE!!

OgreBattle wrote:...

Like an evil guy takes advantage of the tarrasque's emergence to go do evil in other parts of the kingdom, or some giant hellwasps build a nest on its back, feeding on the corpses in the tarrasque's wake and also swarming anything that hurts the tarrasque.

I certainly think that D&D has enough conceptual space to have a giant dumb animal with a ton of hitpoints that can't fly.

This is sadly, currently the only thing I can see the Tarrasque being used for with some degree of verisimilitude.

Someone awesome (with campaign history as an escaped badass/recurring villain) awakens the beast in the east, deploys some decent-but-not-OHSHIT anti-flyer aides to keep it alive while corralling it towards a highly-populated area, meanwhile the awesome awakener is up to some shady shit in the west that they presumably couldn't get up to while the PCs were unoccupied. The Tarrasque's rampage and the presence of the awe-inspiring aides corralling it, and presumably the Tarrasque's target destination (he's heading towards the temple where we keep the ultimate MacGuffin and will break its defensive seals!) are clear markers of a this-is-it end-of-the-campaign battle. They get intercepted on the way by doomsday cultists or whoever the fuck else because this shit shouldn't be easy. Eventually the PCs intercept and deal with Tarrasque and its complement (making it perhaps actually an interesting fight, or perhaps one interesting fight against the complement and one HAHA LOL REALLY WTF against the Tarrasque), only to hear of the TRUE danger in the west (hurry up oh no HE'S REACHED HIS FINAL FORM) in which the recurring villain reveals himself and the PCs have to go fight someone actually meaningful for all the marbles.

On its own it'd be a real sad sack.

infected slut princess wrote:IIRC the 4e Tarrasque had some ability to limit flying in its presence. I forget the details, but it was 4e and it was probably stupid anyway.

But the biggest crime is how they took away the cool feature of Regenerating from all damage even death magic and disintegrate; Wish spell required to kill it permanently. They should have never took taken that away. It just contributes more to the Tarrasque being a big dumb retard.

Yeah, he had a sort of Earth-based quasi Gravity field 200ft, that pulled down fliers to be within his Melee reach, reduced Fly to 1, and you drop 20ft automatically.

I also agree with that, the whole supper awesome factor of him is its nigh invincibility, that gives me that Metroid Kraid feeling.

EDIT:

RedstoneOrc wrote: You is the dumbest evar. Why else would someone actively in Godzilla if not to save lives. Also thanks for attributing someone elses argument to me. I mean, say one sentence in this entire thread about how I like a way to engage the pcs and that means doctors are cowards. Don't be a goddamn childraper pedo next time.

I'm not sure if this is you joking, but I didn't think you had emotional problems? He made a good point, and it wasn't against you personally, it was against the idea you were supporting that was dumb. Seriously, leave your ego at the door.

That said, I can somewhat respect the idea ye were going for, whole "do the ends justify the means?" scenario calling their heroics into question. Though yeah, losses will happen, and making them -100, vs. -1000 is a great victory all the same. Course, you're basically liking a preference of tone, in DC they'd be praised & the casualties handwaved, Marvel might just make that an entire subplot itself from those people dying (nevermind New 52, and latest Marvel cartoons have been lighter in tone. You get the idea).

Aryxbez wrote: But the biggest crime is how they took away the cool feature of Regenerating from all damage even death magic and disintegrate; Wish spell requ

I'm not sure if this is you joking, but I didn't think you had emotional problems? He made a good point, and it wasn't against you personally, it was against the idea you were supporting that was dumb. Seriously, leave your ego at the door.

That said, I can somewhat respect the idea ye were going for, whole "do the ends justify the means?" scenario calling their heroics into question. Though yeah, losses will happen, and making them -100, vs. -1000 is a great victory all the same. Course, you're basically liking a preference of tone, in DC they'd be praised & the casualties handwaved, Marvel might just make that an entire subplot itself from those people dying (nevermind New 52, and latest Marvel cartoons have been lighter in tone. You get the idea).

I think you missed the point because he made no count them zero points of my one post (so) in this thread to make my " good" aligned party to make good aligned decisions. Niether Dean or you realise is that I don't give a damn about your war with grognards or 5e I lurk here for good ideas for my games and witty threads. But I strongly dislike asshats putting words in my mouth/text so I keep it short so it won't happen.

Dean though wanted to lump me in with something I even read about, but he knew in his magical soul that I was arguing swording little T in face no matter what so he's a pedo. Cuz he wants dead orphans preferably to do bad things with

P.S. like your comic analogy

RedstoneOrc wrote:I think you missed the point because he made no count them zero points of my one post

I think you should re-edit your post to be more clear, its sounding rather garbled, but I'm glad you enjoyed my analogy (thumbs up).

Despite you quoted both, he recognized which point you were making, which had the prior assumption of the PC's vs. Tarrasque being 1st or too low level for Melee (that, or you lose in melee even if level appropriate). So the idea of instead of blowing up the orphanage, but saving the day, versus going toe to toe and dying, thusly no other heroes to 'save the day' assumingly, equating to maximum losses WOULD NOT be a better solution. Sure, their name may go down as heroes, but there'd be really no one left to tell it, or doesn't really matter as their efforts became less heroic by failing. So if in the end, you save MORE lives by not charging in head on...then yeah, you're still a hero, ,even if it doesn't fit the storybook scene we'd want in our heads of it.

Niether Dean or you realise I don't give a damn about your war with grognards or 5e I lurk here for good ideas for my games and witty threads.

I don't really give a damn either why you're here, though I'd hope it'd at least come with the understanding of being reasonable, and speaking clearly. So good for you, no way we could've known that, and isn't relevant to the discussion.

I get you took what he said personally, and can understand the honor of it, but it's really made petulant by your random insult of calling him a Pedo. If it's not just a random insult you're saying to feel better, then it's just an example of garbled text I understand little. Especially as he's arguing for less dead fictional orphans in theory, while Tarrasque might barrel into one orphanage, doesn't mean he'll get em all in those 600 seconds (which, doesn't really matter, as again, they'll save more people by succeeding than failing).

I think the greater problem with throwing the Tarrasque at an orphanage because you want the PCs to get their Good on and go kill it quickly is that you're throwing the Tarrasque at an orphanage.

As mentioned, that's a lot of dead kids no matter what, and if your players want to do Good with their avatars it's kinda nice if the number of dead kids can just be zero. Stick a big waving flag on the building or something, have the T mow down some flags, then head at the flagged orphanage (BIG HINT), so the PCs can take it and run with it to drag the T away from trouble first. While kiting it, obviously.


I mean, obviously the solution to stop trivial mooks on a horse from killing it with a bow is to just give it some tiny regeneration. Doesn't have to be 3e's big numbers. 2nd edition just had 1hp per round and (along with immunity to magic and arrows) it stopped the stupidest tricks from working. It was a melee monster that could really only be killed with melee attacks. Or you could just go around the big fucker like everyone else, have it follow you for the rest of the adventure, wreaking havoc in enemy territory.

Tussock quit your bitching. Not everyone wants to play Disney G-rated d&d.

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:

Foxwarrior wrote:Arthas is a paladin though.

I mean after he breaks the top of the Frozen Throne and inherits Ner'zhul's knowledge as a former shaman and agent of the Burning Legion. Thus, granting him all the proper lichy schticks like necromancy, commanding vast legions of the undead, being difficult to permanently destroy, etc. Plus, he can still bonk people over the head with Frostmourne too.

Please tell me what books you're referring to, because this sounds like an awesome read.

It's from Warcraft III and World Of Warcraft.

Lord Mistborn wrote:Yeah. but to be fair "big T does his best Godzilla impression" is pretty much the only imaginable scenario that the Tarrasque is something more than a roadblock or a XP pinata.

An actually functional version of big T would probably need burrowing and some kind of ranged attack. Sort of like Behemoth in Worm.

I'm fond of the one from the Improved Monster Classes thread. Swim & burrow, a half-mile radius "fuck you no flying" ability, and at-will earthquake and storm of vengeance.

It's still a puzzle monster. It's slow, and if you can hit it from half a mile away the fight's over before it began. But, it can eat magic items and is a class, so it's meant to have equipment instead of treasure, so you can give it boots of quickened teleport or some shit. If you CAN'T hit it from half a mile away, it's going to eat you.

Monsters are just fighting robots without SLAs and cool Supernatural Abilities.

The Balor isn't anything more than a strong, reskinned Barbarian NPC, basically. Same with a Pit Fiend.

Anything that doesn't have immediate combat application is scrapped. You'll never see a high level evil being with low level powers in this edition.

It takes a lot of roleplay and out of combat utility away from monsters.
They just seem to exist in a 20 by 20 room to fist fight adventures.

tussock wrote: I mean, obviously the solution to stop trivial mooks on a horse from killing it with a bow is to just give it some tiny regeneration. Doesn't have to be 3e's big numbers. 2

I think you mean damage reduction. Regeneration heals a static amount per round and can be overcome by adding damage per round. This damage can either be a single large attack or many smaller ones added together.

DR blocks out a certain amount of damage per attack, so it restricts the usefulness of adding up many smaller attacks, and will completely block attacks too weak to overcome the DR.

Regeneration is handy for giving an incentive for pressing the fight and allowing the fight to "reset" if the PCs have to retreat and recoup.

RobbyPants wrote:

tussock wrote: I mean, obviously the solution to stop trivial mooks on a horse from killing it with a bow is to just give it some tiny regeneration. Doesn't have to be 3e's big numbers. 2

I think you mean damage reduction. Regeneration heals a static amount per round and can be overcome by adding damage per round. This damage can either be a single large attack or many smaller ones added together.

DR blocks out a certain amount of damage per attack, so it restricts the usefulness of adding up many smaller attacks, and will completely block attacks too weak to overcome the DR.

Regeneration is handy for giving an incentive for pressing the fight and allowing the fight to "reset" if the PCs have to retreat and recoup.

Honestly it should have both. As well as ways to deal with enemies trying to range kite it.

Seerow wrote: Honestly it should have both. As well as ways to deal with enemies trying to range kite it.

I'd be fine with both. I was just telling Tussock that regeneration doesn't give him the effect he's after; he needs DR for that.

Depends what you're trying to promote or dissuade. The original complaint was one guy on a horse kills the 5e Tarrasque in a few hundred rounds. If you're OK with a hundred horse archers getting the job done, small regeneration is just right. It's a thing which can't kill wealthy armies, can't be stopped by a couple low-level flying PCs, but can destroy villages and be a fair speed bump.

If only high level PCs should be getting the job done, the ancient rule of needing +5 weapons and high level spells or GTFO works pretty well, as there's no game mechanics which can give that to armies.

The problem with Regen and DR together is certain character builds (multi-attackers) are strongly selected against at the same level, and there's still a bunch of stupid tricks to kill it in short order with a wealthy army.

How can DR be something that wealthy armies can't get around but DR and Regeneration is something that can be killed in short order with a wealthy army.

It's not DR in AD&D for the big guys, if you have a +x weapon you can damage it, if you don't have a +x weapon you can not damage it, same deal with spell levels and other cockblocks. The 2nd ed Tarrasque had it's own unique GTFO abilities.

2nd ed Tarrasque:

Paralysis no-save to all level up to 3 by line of sight. So armies? They stand there in terror and get roflstomped. Drink. Level up to 6 you flee in terror automatically instead. Drink. Level 7+ you get a save. Again, that's all line of sight. It is completely immune to all "directional" magic (cones, bolts, rays, missiles) which it sometimes reflects back at you, and immune to all fire (most of the spells which aren't directional). Wand damage is completely covered. So basically, weapons only plus the odd obscure high level spell. +1 weapons, but you're at least 7th level, so you have them. Total psionic immunity. Plus, you have to cast wish to actually kill it, otherwise it's back to full health in just a few hours.

---

# 5e monster manual, shitty monsters.

The NPCs. Everything is level 2, minimum. Guards, hostile natives, cultists, bandits. Level 6 if you are at all interesting. The "Veteran": level 9. That's the old level title for 1st level AD&D Fighters. Level 9 used to be a Lord, get a Barony, collect tax, pay have an entire army of veterans. This is such a low level game in the fluff. OK, level 2 NPCs are CR 1/8, because crap stats and gear, and the level 9 fighter is CR 3 (which says a lot on it's own, when you think about it). Yeh.

Also, it's worth mentioning a PC's effective CR seems to be around 1/4th their character level.

I ran a solo game for a friend not long ago. The PC didn't get massacred and I even (hopefully) managed to keep a semblance of passable narrative with the encounters, but then it was a city game and I stuck with CR 1/4 to 1/8 enemies.

The experience was not unsatisfactory considering I was sure I wasn't going to be able to pull the solo thing without 4E's minion rules, and the main event (an orc) didn't take -twenty fracking minutes- to kill as it happened with a single zombie during our 4E test.

I still have to run it at least two more times (this time in the adventurer Tier) to make sure it wasn't a fluke.

P.D: No, I didn't sandbag it.